I'm glad that the U.S. State Department condemned cartoons which offended many Muslims. That's their job. They are the official face of the American government to the world. And kudos to President Bush for condemning them. Again, he is America's
. The business of diplomacy is to
.
Luckily, I am not a diplomat. My responsibility as an online writer is to tell the truth as I see it. And the truth, as I see it, is that Islam is the cause of a great deal of evil in the world today.
As the vast majority of Muslims will readily admit to you, Islam is not simply a mode of worship, it is a total way of life that demands every aspect of a person's being. In other words, there is no render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's. There is no assumption of the separation of individual duty to God, and a society's duty to God. Thus, it proscribes not only what I should do as an individual, but what we should do as a society.
Islam as a religion I can accept, it is Islam as an ideology that I cannot.
The criticisms of those of us who are suspicious of Islam are sometimes valid. Frankly, part of the reason that I blog is to unleash my jeuvenile side. So, any accusation that The Jawa Report is often jeuvenile is spot on.
However, many recent comments by Left, Right, and Center are so far off and misinformed that they represent a kind of ideology of their own. That ideology confuses religious tolerance with religious acceptance. To tolerate Islam simply means to accept it as fact of life, but tolerance does not imply that I embrace it on equal terms with other religions.
I expect the Left to confuse tolerance and acceptance. They have always confused the two. But for the Right to do it is oddly out of place.
The Right has always been critical of ideologies which were antithetical to Liberty. We tolerated the Communist Party USA for 50 years, but were on the forefront of calling the ideology espoused by it what it was: inherently totalitarian.
I personally tolerated the head of the CPUSA as I listened to him speak on a square in front of Moscow's Bolshoi Theatre in the mid-1990s. Believe me, it took all the strength I could muster to not jump on that stage and pop him one in the mouth as he cheered the old Soviet system and lied to the Russian people that they had been far better off under Communism than Americans ever were under democracy.
I tolerated him, but did not embrace him. That is how tolerance works.
We on the Right were correct in saying that Communism was an inherently totalitarian system. It subsumed the individual to the collective, the will of the me to the you.
During that time, and even today, Communist 'fellowtraveler' apologists liked to distinguish between 'Marxism' or 'true Communism' and 'Stalinism' or 'Soviet Communism'. In their minds, it was unfair to criticize Marx or often even Lenin.
Marx and Lenin, they would say, were trying to help people, but Stalin was in it just for the power. They found it easier to believe that Stalin murdered 40 million people for the sake of his own megalomania than because he believed he was doing it for the sake of building Communism. Oddly, they could see that Hitler killed the Jews because he believed it was helping build the uber race, but it eluded them how it could be that Stalin could murder the kulaks for the sake of collectivization.
A great deal of academic work was produced during this time as a way for the followers of Marx to distinguish themselves from Communism as it was actually practiced in the Soviet Union or in China. Such work was meant to separate 'true Communism' from the Communist states.
None of us cowered at the notion of saying that it was Marx's ideology itself that was evil. None of us feared offending them or alienating them by saying that Stalin was the direct and logical outcome of Marx. That the gulags were in fact started by that heroic icon of the Left, Lenin. That Communism itself was totalitarian in nature and evil.
Despite expressing our opinion about the inherent flaws of Communism and its ideological founder, Marx, we still tolerated Communists among us. And despite cries of 'McCarthyism', we attempted to boldly declare that which we truly believed.
During all of this the Left loved to bring up the fact that the vast majority of Soviet citizens would love nothing more than to live in peace. Our rejoinder was, "so what." How is that relevant to a discussion over whether or not Communism is inherently totalitarian and that Marx is responsible for it?
The Left also liked to point out states like Tito's Yugoslavia as examples of what they liked to believe were more open societies which were Marxist in orientation. Again, we replied, they may not be as bad as the USSR, but the citizens of Yugoslavia were also not free in any liberal sense of the word. To point out that there is a difference between Communism in Yugoslavia and the USSR is only show that one is less totalitarian than the other, not that neither are totalitarian.
It was also obvious to every one that there were different factions within the greater community of Marxists. Some of these factions had rehabilitated Marx to the point that they were no different than non-Marxist social-democrats. We didn't really care if they called themselves Marxists. That was fine. As long as they rejected the core ideas of Marxism. For instance, the last time I checked, Christopher Hithchens was calling himself a Trotskyite-Marxist. No accounting for ideological labels, I guess.
We were mature enough then to call Communism evil, while recognizing that the individual Communist was the kind of person we could go to a baseball game with. That is to say, one's ideology has little to do with how that person acts on a day to day basis. One's ideology only tells us how that person believes society ought to be organized, not how one ought to act now in the society we have today.
I am a libertarian. Nevertheless, rarely am I tempted to open a brothel, grow pot, or exceed the speed limit as political protest.
I hope the foregoing analogy has made itself clear by now. If it hasn't, I'm sorry. Allow me to explain why all of this is relevant.
Today, some on the Right wish us to remain silent on the topic of Islam. Some wish us to remain silent for strategic reasons--we need moderate Muslims to fight radical Muslims. This is a valid concern.
But the same concern existed in Europe during the Cold War. We did not wish to alienate European Marxists who opposed Soviet Aggression. Yet, we understood that these Socialists were mature enough to accept our criticisms while taking our aid.
Some wish us to remain silent because they are just too lazy to open up a Koran and the traditionally accepted hadiths (sayings and traditions) and find out what the roots of the core ideology of Islam really are. To say that some branches of Islam reject many of the more odious hadiths and interpretations of the Koran, that some are fully committed to a very liberal form of Islam, or that most Muslims simply do not contemplate these doctrines on a day to day basis is all well and true, but begs the essential question which we were willing to ask in the case of Marx, but seem to be unwilling to ask about Muhammed: is there something inherent in these teachings that is incompatible with the liberal tradition?
That the vast majority of the victims of Islamic violence are fellow Muslims also is telling, but not in the way that some wish us to believe. The Muslim victims of terrorism are no less victims of Islam than the countless number of true-believing socialists murdered by Communism.
The vast majority of the victims of Communism were people living in Communist states. 40 million Soviets were killed because of Communism. Tens of millions of Chinese citizens were killed because of Communism. That the victims of Communism were largely members of socialist societies says a great deal about the ideology itself. So too with Islam and its victims.
To criticize Islam is no more to criticize the individual Muslim than criticizing Marx was an attack on the character of an individual Marxist. To criticize Islamic societies is no more an attack on Muslims than criticizing Soviet society was an attack on Russians.
What I think about Islam has absolutely nothing to do with what I think about Muslims. I hate Islam, yet in two hours a close Muslim friend will be over at my house. What I think about Communism has nothing to with what I think of Communists. So much so, in fact, that I spent nine months of my life hanging out with pro-Stalin Russian Communists!!
To say that there is a direct connection between the teachings of Muhammed, Islam, and the terrorism that it so often breeds is no different than saying that there is a direct connection between Marx, Communism, and the totalitarianism that it bred.
Islam is the root cause of Islamic terrorism, just as Marxism was the root cause of international Communist aggression.
Islam is the root cause of Islamic authoritarianism in every single nation that has a Muslim majority, just as Marxism was the root cause of authoritarianism in every single nation that adopted the Communist system.
Muhammed is the man responsible for creating the ideology of conflict and tyranny that is Islam, every bit as much as Marx is the man responsible for creating the ideology of conflict and tyranny that is Communism.
To ask me to say anything less of Islam is to ask me to lie for the sake of political expediency or political correctness. I cannot, and will not, muzzle my criticisms of Muhammed simply because it may alienate some of our allies in the war on terror, nor will I be silent about Islam simply because it may offend.
We were able to win the Cold War without resorting to such nonsense. I hope and pray that we can win the war against radical Islam under those same terms.
Posted by: traderrob at February 04, 2006 03:54 PM (3al54)
2
Ditto, you are spot on...
and in a whisper I agree that " I think we have an even deeper problem than even I would like to admit..."
God help us.
Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at February 04, 2006 04:10 PM (aH6Zf)
Posted by: Don Miguel at February 04, 2006 04:11 PM (UAn5X)
4
Where are all these spots you speak of?
Damn, spot, begone!
;-)
Posted by: Rusty at February 04, 2006 04:43 PM (JQjhA)
5
You have nailed the issue perfectly. Hats off to you.
Posted by: Rosemary Esmay at February 04, 2006 05:05 PM (S1ka/)
6
To Islamic fundamentalists from Londonistan to Karachi, “humanism” and “idolatry” are primitive pagan sins that must be combated by all means
Ironically, the main role model for these fanatical fools is not their own medieval Arab prophet Muhammad, but rather ancient heroes such as Moses who fought “the decadent/civilized Egyptians armies with a small group of Bedouin guerillas” and Sicarii-in-chief Simon Bin Giora who believed that it was a “believer’s religious duty to kill unbelievers, collaborators and their children”
See wiki link below for more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicarii
Eventually, secular Roman generals were left with no choice but to dispose of them forcefully...
Posted by: Dr Victorino de la Vega at February 04, 2006 05:09 PM (gDbg0)
7
I don't consider mockery directed at aspects of the practice of religion to be unacceptable in all cases, even if it is directed at Christianity. Mockery is a very effective tool against those who have become too self-important. Mockery is the tool Jesus employed against the Pharisees as recorded in Matthew 23.
Even if Islam weren't, as Rusty points out, a "coherent socio-political system", it is fair game for mockery--just as the Pharisees were.
Posted by: Sue Bob at February 04, 2006 05:12 PM (cskP4)
8
All this hoity-toity fancy talk doesn't mean you're off the hook in the fatwa competition, buddy-boy.
Posted by: Vinnie at February 04, 2006 05:13 PM (f289O)
9
"render unto caesar"
Speaks volumes. Christians are commanded to render onto Caesar, but muslims are commanded NOT to. It's why they are such poor neighbors and guests.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 04, 2006 05:20 PM (paKD6)
10
One of the best things I've ever done, I did without knowing.
Now at this point there are so many topics I could but won't go into. Simply by avoiding daily bombardment of the "stuff" called TV programming and "newspapers" over the last ten years has been quite enlightening. Now before I get accused of an Ostrich stance, I do get around. My eyes still function and my ears still hear, though both are not as keen as they once were...
Cutting to the chase.....What if we were to assemble proportionate numbers of virtually every known religious group, send them off to a planet. In order for their mutual survival, they would have to rely on blending their skills and abilities? What if the planet were equipped with an endless supply of air, food, water and say it was the third rock from the sun? What if?
Would freedoms and rights howled from mountaintops have the same impact? Would good actions have a new meaning? Would the value of those who choose to build things be valuable?
Posted by: forest hunter at February 04, 2006 05:45 PM (Fq6zR)
11
There are many parallels between islam and communism...imo Mohammed was the first communist revolutionary.
Posted by: Mr. K at February 04, 2006 06:27 PM (Y2KiH)
12
Great idea, forest hunder! I would be all for taking radical Muslim and putting them on another planet. Venus comes to mind.
Posted by: Ernie Oporto at February 04, 2006 06:31 PM (WvUov)
13
Why do we keep talking about Radical Islam as a religion? It's not religion;
it's a fascist movement. It's goal is submission.
forest hunter: did you ever read Lord of the Flys?
Posted by: Patty at February 04, 2006 06:42 PM (aH6Zf)
Posted by: Patty at February 04, 2006 06:45 PM (aH6Zf)
15
Patty
Point taken. No I never read that book or for that matter, very many at all. Blessed with a number of skills has kept me busy and by the time I got done working, too tired to read. Not complainin', just the way it's been for so many years..... keeping the wolves at bay and raising babies. Now that I'm old and my grandkids are increasing, I have more time.
What's the book about? Basically.
Posted by: forest hunter at February 04, 2006 07:07 PM (Fq6zR)
16
It'd be interesting to know what your reply to this article in The Sunday Times might be. Appropriately, it's been copied onto an Islamic blog:
http://www.qern.org/node/242
Posted by: Daniel at February 04, 2006 07:48 PM (vBvGT)
17
Daniel
Is the link spelled right?
Posted by: forest hunter at February 04, 2006 08:22 PM (Fq6zR)
18
I totally agree with you. It is only this last month, that I have come to realize that I have been conned in the name of political expedience.
There is no Good-Muslim :Bad-Muslim.
They all believe to "kill the disbeliever" , they cannot abide people OUTSIDE of their culture to disbelieve.
That is absolutely clear. I am now anti-Islam. I intend to do something about it. We will organize here in Alberta. I don't want any of those Muslims or Islamics bringing their hate and intolerance here in my small city.
We don't want them. Not because of their religion or race but because of their hate and intolerance and violence.
Hiding these things under the cloak of religion is just taking advantage of our tolerance. Hate is not religion.
There is no way little old ladies in Canada are going to be hauled into police stations because they have toy pigs in their windows or have 200 year old statues of pigs destroyed or Miss Piggy calendars torn up.
The British caved in and look what they got for appeasing the Islamics.
No way I want that to happen in my country.
Posted by: max at February 04, 2006 08:49 PM (NE2mH)
19
Rusty, Patty and the rest of you who I have likely added additional frustration to your day- A thousand apologies, Sheeesh! I'm going to blame it on too much rockin to Raitt on the radio while "reading" or maybe the cream cheese pickle sandwich I ate. I guess we know now who the sharpest pencil in the box isn't. Man, if we were having a contest about who's ass is blackest, I could make a coal miner look like Mr. Clean!
I read/re-read the piece and absolutely understood what you were saying quite clearly. I got it! So sorry for muddin' up the water. I'm takin' my toys and goin' home!
Posted by: forest hunter at February 04, 2006 09:04 PM (Fq6zR)
20
Max,
I thought I was clear in the post that I don't hate Muslims or think they are all bad. In fact, I thought I quite clearly stated the opposite: that one may believe in a bad ideal and yet remain a good individual.
Thus, most Muslims I know are wonderful people.
Yet, at the same time, most Communists I know are wonderful people.
In either case I do not wish them to become anything other than a small minority. Not because they are bad, but because I hate the thought of them having the power to reorganize society along the lines of their chosen ideology which is dangerous.
Posted by: Rusty at February 04, 2006 09:06 PM (JQjhA)
21
Forrest Hunter,
I think I understood what you were saying the first time, so no problem.
Posted by: Rusty at February 04, 2006 09:07 PM (JQjhA)
22
You are GLAD that the State Department and the President "condemned" these silly cartoons? In my view, you are far too generous to the State Department and to the President in this matter.
(In my view, our Government should not condemn things that speak truth and don't deserve condemning. Creeping political correctness is not helping anything. Silence in this case would have been preferable to these Dhimmi-like condemnations by our Government.)
You, sir, on the other hand, certainly speak the truth boldly about Islam -- and I heartily salute you for it!
Posted by: gunjam at February 04, 2006 09:34 PM (2x+9Q)
23
May one gently counsel everyone to oil up the equipment?
Posted by: Mike H. at February 04, 2006 10:16 PM (uOBz7)
24
Hi Forest Hunter,
the link is correct. since i posted it here, i managed to find the original article on The Times' website.
According to Simon Jenkins, "These cartoons don't defend free speech, they threaten it."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-2025511_1,00.html
Daniel
Posted by: Daniel at February 04, 2006 10:31 PM (vBvGT)
25
Today, some on the Right wish us to remain silent on the topic of Islam. Some wish us to remain silent for strategic reasons--we need moderate Muslims to fight radical Muslims. This is a valid concern.
I just want to make clear that giving Islam a good scare at this point is probably compassionate, and will ultimately help the genuine "moderates." Well, I think that's the case, and hope it is, but I'm not sure. It's also not at all clear to me that Islam is necessarily an ideology, although it has been trending in that direction for about a century. Still, Sufism is Islam and I hardly regard it with enmity. It's not mainstream Islam, of course... but neither is Salafism. In fact not even Islamism is yet mainstream, since the Islamists are not yet a majority in any Muslim nation (and more like 20% in most).
Several years ago Wretchard made the observation, in "Three Conectures," that our degrees of freedom were invested in turning the tide in the
Ummah and I'm not ready to give up that freedom for the sake of an automatic slide into a cultural war. By all means let's scare Islam straight, but let's also leave the door ajar just a bit.
I didn't know GW had condemned the cartoons. What the deuce is he thinking? I'm just choosing not to waive them like a flag, trusting that there's still hope in the
Ummah.
God help us.
Posted by: Demosophist at February 04, 2006 10:34 PM (3byE/)
26
Liberal Left:
"You cannot make a country responsible for a terrorist act committed by it's Citizens"
Muslims:
"We can hold a whole country accountable for a Newpaper cartoon."
At least there is some degree of separation occurring.
Posted by: dave at February 04, 2006 11:11 PM (CcXvt)
27
As a former Muslim, I find your article absolutely spot-on. From its inception, Islam has been a political ideology that usurped the role of religion. There are no doubt Muslims in this country who have learned the value of western ideals and blended those with a sort of "kinder, gentler" Islam. But as well intentioned as they (and the rest of our country) may be, that is not going to change the ugly reality of the real Islam, I'm afraid
Posted by: Masud at February 04, 2006 11:36 PM (f0EXs)
28
All this talk is great, and it is certainly advantageous for us that Islam has now shown it's ugly side for all to see. However, it is now a time for action. Radical Muslims who have threatened violence(like the ones carrying signs in Britain) should be deported. No moderates who wish to abide by the law should. We need to separate the moderates from the radicals, and perhaps the moderate Muslims will see the advantage of living in a secular society.
The radicals should be expelled from the West, and now. Denmark, you have the best reason to start the process, and we should all support you. Then the rest of Europe and the US need to follow. Starting tomorrow morning.
Posted by: jesusland joe at February 04, 2006 11:40 PM (rUyw4)
29
Daniel
And thanks to the counsel of Mike H, I'll try and be a bit more generous with the oil.
Up until mine eyes had seen the glory in Rusty's explanation of Islam, I grouped Islam in with religion. Based on that misunderstanding then, the Times piece has many issues in need of reconsideration. This is likely attributable to what Rick Moran was referring to in his "MORE LAZY REPORTING FROM THE MEDIA" ie; "Islam is an ancient and dignified religion".
Aside from that and without splitting hairs re:Islam, religion or not, Jenkins writes at length about creating more laws. Laws, something these evil fanatics have been and will continue demonstrating their respect for. Case in point, the insanity of yesterdays Embassy attacks.
Jenkins seems to be in agreement with the same sunken ship of fools splashin' about in their self-induced trauma and would have us believe their problems are all our fault. The fact that we are still alive is as close as that argument can ever be to being truth.
In an effort to keep this brief, simply put there's a time and place for nearly everything. Cartoons aren't the reason as much as they are an excuse for mayhem to flourish.
Posted by: forest hunter at February 05, 2006 12:00 AM (Fq6zR)
30
Rusty,
Billions of Muslems remain silent while their 'significant others' incite and inflict terror worldwide. That deafening silence MUST be considered tacit approval in the absence of tangible outrage and action against radical Islam.
Their silence will be the petri dish for new generations of Islamic terror.
Muslem silence and timid Western indecision... gollygosh.
Posted by: cheapseat at February 05, 2006 01:08 AM (xkyhP)
31
At one point Rusty, you say that the beliefs of the individual communist or muslim does not dictate how they act on a day to day basis and then later on say that terrorism and communism (the ideologies) directly cause(d) terrorist attacks and totalitarian government. Don't these two sentiments contradict each other in that a person either follows these ideological principles (such as creating totalitarian states and committing suicide bombings) or those are not the real principles the person is following.
Or: Do you believe that it is a person's philosophical beliefs that motivate his or her behavior?
Posted by: Rachel at February 05, 2006 01:18 AM (534lv)
32
I agree with your analysis in total, and Islam is NOT a religion of peace, no matter how one wants to to dice and slice it. It always has been that of bloody wars, and opression. However, in response to Dr De Ka Varga, you are truly misguided in your statement regarding Moses being the model for these fanatics. You do not know your history, and shouldbecareful what you claim to be true. Moses simply fought to free the Jews from Slavery by the Eqyptians, and although there is no time to explain it all, I would recommend that you keep your 'dislike' towards Christians to yourself. Go and study history first!
Posted by: cali_sun at February 05, 2006 01:57 AM (Q/OtU)
33
Hello Rusty.
I couldnt post at Mr. Esmays site, so I came here to answer the question he posed you.
From Henry Mercier's translation. I chose it because it has the Arabic on the pages opposite the translation. I can't read it, but it looks
interesting.
Here are a few passages that advocate hegemonic sharia.
Sura 8 Verse 39
"Fight them until there is an end to doctrinal strife, and there is no other religion than God's. If they make amends, God will see it."
Sura 9 Verse 123
"O ye believers! Fight the infidels who are near you. Let them find sterness in you, and know that God is with those that fear him."
I like this one. It sooths the conscience.
Sura 8 Verse 17
"You did not slay them. It is GOD WHO SLEW THEM;
Nor didst thou strike a blow when thou didst strike but GOD DID STRIKE to try the believers with a goodly trial. God both hears and knows all."
Sura 3 Verses 157-8
"And if you be killed or die in God's service, this is a remission of sin and a mercy from God more precious than what you can gather, and if you die or be killed, it is always before God that you shall meet again."
HOW ABOUT THIS DANDY MR. ESMAY?
Sura 47 Verse 35
"DO NOT WAVER NOR CRY FOR PEACE when you HAVE THE UPPER HAND, and when God is with you. He will not divest you of the consequences of your work."
And, while unrelated, check out this winner from the ROP
Sura 4 Verse 34
" MEN ARE SUPERIOR TO WOMEN because of the qualities whereby God has made a distinction between them, and because they expend their wealth to cover the cost of housekeeping. Virtuous women are devout and keep intact in their husband's absence what God has prescribed to keep intact. IF YOU FEAR THEY WILL REJECT YOU, admonish them, and remove them into another bedroom, finally, BEAT THEM. IF THEY OBEY YOU THEN WORRY THEM NO MORE. God is high and great."
So there you go Rusty, he, in my opinion, was rather condescending towards you, I hope you will take the time to send them along to Dean, as I was unable to. He says he has read a "good bit of the Koran", someone needs to inform him about the bad bits, I'm sure there are more, I'm no expert, these are just passages i earmarked when I read it. Cuz I'm all multi-culti and groovy like.
Posted by: geofferygellineck at February 05, 2006 02:56 AM (eyEVO)
34
decided to flip through a li'l bit and found this
keeper. I tell you, Allah has a way with words.
S. 24 V 2,3
"Scourge the whore and the whoremonger with a hundred strokes. YOU MUST NOT GIVE WAY TO PITY IN GOD'S RELIGION, if you believe in God and the last day. Let a party of believers witness their punishment."
He's got a million of'em.
Posted by: geofferygellineck at February 05, 2006 03:05 AM (eyEVO)
35
Good article, Rusty.
Perchprism
Posted by: perchprism at February 05, 2006 07:48 AM (R/1Ij)
36
I agree with almost everything Rusty said. One point, while true, is not the "whole" truth. Take this statement and the idea surrounding it for example:
"That is to say, one's ideology has little to do with how that person acts on a day to day basis. One's ideology only tells us how that person believes society ought to be organized, not how one ought to act now in the society we have today."
He says too that Communists, for example, may have screwed up ideas, but they can be good people. True.
BUT ... being in a democratically run country, we all have the right to vote and that is where the danger comes in. Leave Communists, Islamists, Marxists, etc. alone to grow unchallenged, just because they're "nice people", and they will vote for others who share that ideology. They will, consciously or not and with malice or not, use our democratic system to destroy our democratic system. They only need 51%.
Posted by: Oyster at February 05, 2006 09:05 AM (YudAC)
37
Without freedom of speech there are no other freedoms/liberties. Every one should be convinced of that.
Posted by: AVe at February 05, 2006 10:13 AM (2m5fc)
38
Somebody above said that the violent protesters should be deported. All you do in that case is delay the inevitable. If the deported persons are serious, they will return, with friends. Or they will unite with the other crazies who wish to destroy the Western World. Hopefully our governments will wise up and incarcerate such individuals for a long time. Like, say..LIFE IN PRISON.
As long as the treat of Radical Islam remains at large, we are all at risk.
Craig C
Posted by: Craig C at February 05, 2006 10:25 AM (tap3O)
39
Somebody above said that the violent protesters should be deported. All you do in that case is delay the inevitable. If the deported persons are serious, they will return, with friends. Or they will unite with the other crazies who wish to destroy the Western World. Hopefully our governments will wise up and incarcerate such individuals for a long time. Like, say..LIFE IN PRISON.
As long as the threat of Radical Islam remains at large, we are all at risk.
Craig C
Posted by: Craig C at February 05, 2006 10:25 AM (tap3O)
40
How is fundamentalist Christianity or Mormonism in America ANY different from fundamentalist Islam? Sure, be worried about the Islamic freaks, but be even more concerned about what's happening under your nose in your own country.
Posted by: Katherine at February 05, 2006 01:58 PM (KvrK7)
41
Katherine- you can't be serious.
You must be the last person left on Earth who still equates the inactions of fundy-Christians with the rivers of blood flowing from islam.
Or, perhaps you actually are serious and you just enjoy repeating lies.
AV
Posted by: atomicvomit at February 05, 2006 02:39 PM (sH2lM)
42
Well, Katherine, tell me the last time a Christian cut someone's head off in this country, or threatened to blow himself up in a crowded nightclub, or threatened an entire country because a newspaper published a cartoon. Or bombed a busload of commuters, or attemted to bomb a hospital, or........I could go on, but what's the point, you should get the idea by now.
You need to get real. If you can't see the difference then you are a fool, but most likely you see the difference and are just a liar. Sorry, but your post is ridiculous on its face.
Posted by: jesusland joe at February 05, 2006 02:42 PM (rUyw4)
43
Excellent post. You've nailed it on the head.
Posted by: RedCard at February 05, 2006 02:43 PM (ik6+W)
44
there is a similarity between islamism and communism beyond any communalist thinking that puts the individual in subservience to a larger religious or political idea or in their parallel commingling of faith and state (islam is a political principle and communism demands faith). both are dialectical in that they see themselves as supplanting and completing history. to see the fulfillment of their causes, in the spiritual or class struggles, they both assert a will to power that demands a triumph over the predecessors that are their sources (judeo-christianity or capitalism). like an insecure, neuotic child, they must see the parent destroyed to establish their distinct legitimacy.
Posted by: mcmorris at February 05, 2006 03:03 PM (sFoY0)
45
Katherine, I'll be worried about Mormons and fundamentalist Christians when they start massacring children and sawing the heads off of reporters and schoolteachers.
Until then: not so much.
Posted by: Russ at February 05, 2006 03:17 PM (Xw7hZ)
46
there is another way that islam and communism are similar beyond the communalist subservience of the individual or the commingling of faith and the political state. both are dialectical and see their triumph as the fulfilment of history. islam must supplant its judeo-christian antecedants much as communists must see the end of the bourgeois, capitalist system. like an insecure, neurotic child who needs to destroy the parent to establish its own distinct legitimacy, islam cannot coexist with other montheisms on an equal basis but must dominate them.
Posted by: mcmorris at February 05, 2006 03:24 PM (sFoY0)
47
oops, i posted twice. didn't think the first one went through. sorry about that.
Posted by: mcmorris at February 05, 2006 03:28 PM (sFoY0)
48
Katherine, I see your point .. however, American terrorists are pussies.
They just don't have the knack for mass murder. Something about them wanting to survive the attack, or some silly self-preservationist crap, like that.
McVeigh, Rudolph, et al. Nope, they just didn't have the same grapes as the radical muslim terrorist.
Posted by: Pete at February 05, 2006 03:43 PM (6DvwA)
49
Jesusland Joe et al; One example of many: Oklahoma City. Remember? I could go on...
As for the rest of you, religious fanaticism and the intolerance it breeds, is the root of ALL the evil in the world. We would all be better off if we discarded the superstitious rot that masquerades as “morals“.
Posted by: wingbatmatt at February 05, 2006 04:40 PM (ywrbp)
50
Jesusland Joe et al; One example of many: Oklahoma City. Remember? I could go on...
As for the rest of you, religious fanaticism and the intolerance it breeds, is the root of ALL the evil in the world. We would all be better off if we discarded the superstitious rot that masquerades as “morals“.
Posted by: wingbatmatt at February 05, 2006 04:40 PM (ywrbp)
51
"To say that there is a direct connection between the teachings of Muhammed, Islam, and the terrorism that it so often breeds is no different than saying that there is a direct connection between Marx, Communism, and the totalitarianism that it bred."
This is the absolute truth. In this century Islam has replaced Soviet style communism as the major threat to civilization and freedom in the world. The quicker we realize this and take steps against it the better off we will be.
I take heart from Western reactions to the latest, increasingly violent actions of this cancer posing as a religion. We have moved from Bush infamously calling Islam a "religion of peace" to Rumsfeld underscoring the threat Islamofascist ideology poses to the Western civilization. I think we and the Europeans are finally catching on to the Fifth Column in our societies and the folly of one-way multiculturalism. However, we are just beginning to combat multiculturalist defeatism and Islamofascist aggression.
It's a long-term war of ideas and arms like the one with communism. Like it or not, we've got to face and defeat this new totalitarianism if we are to keep our freedoms.
Posted by: Redhand at February 05, 2006 08:04 PM (TrmBs)
52
One example of many: Oklahoma City. Remember? I could go on
McVeigh was an atheist. He made this clear in his narcissistic pontifications before his execution. Please, when making arguments about religion, do NOT use McVeigh as an example of religious passion. He had his own thing going on. And speaking of things going on, when you say, "I could go on," I assume this to mean, in fact, "Uhh, I can't really go on."
As for the rest of you, religious fanaticism and the intolerance it breeds, is the root of ALL the evil in the world.
Oh, please. Communism and Naziism were the greatest killing machines of all time, and both were atheistic "humanist" movements. Unless you want to make the case that Communism and Naziism were religions -- a case which can be made -- but I am pretty sure you mean something different by 'religion.'
It is actually Utopianism or what David Horowitz calls the Promethian dream that presents the danger. Islam, Communism, and Naziism are Utopian.
We would all be better off if we discarded the superstitious rot that masquerades as “morals“.
This silly statement contains the fallacy of begging the question. You can't define "better off" without a moral theory of utility. How you can you discuss whether even murder is good or bad outside of a moral framework?
Posted by: caspera at February 05, 2006 08:36 PM (jylGY)
53
Spitto. You are dot-on!
Posted by: Mayberry Machiavelli at February 05, 2006 08:55 PM (z/P2i)
54
Caspera,
McViegh what ever his personal beliefs (definitely not an atheist), committed the bombing in retaliation for Waco and Ruby ridge. No fanaticism there? As for the brevity of my list, atrocities committed in the name of Jesus can and has filled books, even a partial list would be beyond the scope of this little pissant post of mine (however, I can‘t help but mention the 100 Years War, the devil made me do it.) I will concede that Stalin, largely due to technology, and not for lack of religious ideology, managed to out due most. As for Hitler, he wasn’t killing Jews because they where a rival political faction. My point is, that taken together, wether your a Christian, Hindi, animist, a freaking Druid, or flying saucer worshiper, religion has fueled centuries of slaughter. As for morality, spare me the freshman philosophical ruminations on utopianism and utilitarianism. If we followed strict Judeo-Christian morality we all be waiting outside Red Lobster to stone the shell fish eaters. One mans morality is another’s blasphemy. It’s just another human construct if you remove the supernatural, which of course can not be proved and must only be taken on faith. How any body less naive the an infant could believe any of it is beyond me.
Posted by: wingbatmatt at February 05, 2006 10:36 PM (ywrbp)
55
Matt, you kind of hit and miss. I could just as easily make the case that the Hundred Years War was about conquest for territory and booty. Religion played a minor role as it did in most of the so-called religious wars. I agree that some were internicine, but hardly the jihad of Islam.
And if we want to talk about mass murder, boy you missed the target by a long shot. Let me list a few for your perusal: Attila, Ghenghis Khan, Tamerlane, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Idi Imin, Lenin, and need I go on. So I can make the case that Christianity is much LESS violent than secularism.
Posted by: jesusland joe at February 05, 2006 10:51 PM (rUyw4)
56
Jesusland Joe,
I certainly wasn’t doing a comparison of relative evil per se, only pointing out that no religion has a monopoly on de-humanizing their rivals. Modern day murderers have technology to improve their efficiency. Do you think that the Turks would have been stopped in the Balkans if they had say, the Maxim gun? We'd all be bowing to Mecca several times a day if that was the case. Conversely Jerusalem would be a entirely Christian city today if the Crusaders had tanks instead of horses. I am pointing out the penchant of all religions in dehumanizing the unbeliever. As for your list, although some of your protagonists are "secular" many of them were a reaction to domination by cultures profoundly organized around religion. Whether or not they where motivated by greed or ideology is not the point. They all used an “us and them” argument to stir the pot so to speak. The key to getting people to do war or murder willingly and mercilessly is to make your victims less than human. What better way of doing this than using religion and it's little brother racism? And although I am hardly an admirer of Lenin, he was no more involved in mass-murder than Czar Nicholas.
Finally, although I do find many things to agree with in the original post by Shakleford, Classic Marxism (a socio-economic reaction to may of the injustices and inequities of the Victorian age) bears only a passing resemblance to modern authoritarian Communism as practiced in the USSR.
‘Nuf said!
Posted by: wingbatmatt at February 06, 2006 01:11 AM (ywrbp)
57
Spot on brother. I call for a crusade. Let the heathens burn in hell. Peace through force.
Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)
Posted by: Whiteelf at February 06, 2006 02:25 AM (nfcOA)
58
The dangers of fanatics are all too relevant today. In the U.S. we have been fairly successful at pushing the extremists off to the side. But, damn it, why the hell even be in the region. I suppose we could just nuke em or rain fire on them. But I'm worried about the wackos in this country ( ID folk, the kind that preach good math and science in the SOTU ?????? Godd math and science, lets teach ID in school, lol...rofl...seriously). These folk are like the ants that get the parasite that turn them into zombies and all they do is climb the stalk of grass waiting for cows to lick them up.
I rambled a little, apologies. Back to the OP. We have to be careful with people who use ideology to set an agenda intolerant of the Libertys and freedoms of this country. And there is no easy path. "Those willing to give up essential freedoms for a little security, do not deserve freedom or security." Benjiman Franklin. And Patrick Henry said it well - "Give me Liberty or give me death."
Peace, out.
Posted by: Isolation Joe at February 06, 2006 02:46 AM (nfcOA)
59
I forgot to mention - when we whipped the rags asses in the first Crusade - we committed cannabalism on them pukes. So lets not make the mistake of going easy on them.
Posted by: Whiteelf at February 06, 2006 02:54 AM (nfcOA)
60
P.P.S and another thing, I work for a bank and the Muslims don't believe in usury and that definately threatans my employment. Not only does the 3rd world greedy bastards want my job an oil rich society wants to get rid of it.
Posted by: Whiteelf at February 06, 2006 02:59 AM (nfcOA)
61
WTF. Whiteelf, your either a nut job or brilliantly funny. I hope its the second, because the other stuff I've read on this blog I thought was just a little too much of the kool-aid crowd.
The Current state of 2 Abraham religions: A Metaphor.
The Planet = the pot
Muslims = instant boil
Christians = slow boil
Regular folk = the frog
Cheers, and I recommend drinking some reality juice.
Posted by: mad unitarian at February 06, 2006 07:02 AM (nfcOA)
62
Matt, to be sure I wasn't saying that religious people or people who used religion as a reason for conquest were innocent in any way, as the Christian expansion in the New World is of particular concern to me, but is still only a shadow of what the Muslims did in their ascent. My point was to demonstrate that there are of a certainty other factors and peoples who did not use religion to commit the most heinous of crimes against humanity.
As for the utopian Communism of Hegel and Marx, I would be very much against it no matter the construct. It encourages people to be nonproductive and slovenly, thus leaving a society in ruins. But I digress, and this is a topic for another thread.
Posted by: jesusland joe at February 06, 2006 09:36 AM (rUyw4)
63
Regarding one of Rusty's previous comments above, I don't care how nice someone is if they're out to kill me or any other innocent people.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 06, 2006 01:56 PM (0yYS2)
64
"( ID folk, the kind that preach good math and science in the SOTU ?????? Godd math and science, lets teach ID in school, lol...rofl...seriously)." I agree that it's silly, to a degree, and so does the majority. So there is really nothing to be afraid of.
And anyway - so what if ID got some space in the curriculum? It's not as if it's to "replace" science. I'd say no to it in a science class because there is no empirical evidence to support it. But if ID becomes part of any curriculum, let it be in a philosophy or theology class. There's no danger in its being taught as a theory in that context. The IDers shot themselves in the foot wanting it to be taught with science. And those demanding it stay out of "any" scholastic environment are being a bit unreasonable too.
I say this from a completely agnostic stand point. So it's not as if I have a stake in this or any religious bias.
Posted by: Oyster at February 06, 2006 03:23 PM (5pqct)
65
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Matt 22:37-40
There's a little problem with those who equate Christianity with theocracy and oppression - it's in direct opposition with the fact and word of the model for the faith.
As for Mormonism, they extend the good through social work, thus creating converts, and thereby extending their universes in the next life. It's hard to do that by violently conquering.
Anyone can act in any way and call it the result of a certain belief, but if that belief is not enshrined in the faith's documents and main proponents, the claim is false. The followers of Christ aspire to his example; so do the Muslims Mohamed's.
To be afraid of Christianity or Mormonism is to equate the wrong people with the practice, and is paranoid. To fear Islam is to understand those who intend to correctly practice it, and is a healthy sign.
Posted by: tee bee at February 06, 2006 04:36 PM (q1JHF)
66
So it's kill them all but not because you hate them as individuals.
Sounds just like Germany in the 1930s
Posted by: sonic at February 06, 2006 08:12 PM (Gsn6c)
67
So it's whine and snivel and blame those who would save you because you hate them thought not as individuals.
Sounds just like a typical worthless, gutless, chickenshit liberal who should be killed for the good of humanity. Eh sonic?
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 07, 2006 09:53 PM (0yYS2)
68
Well done. I'm so glad there are prolific and intelligent writers on forums such as these. "Blogs." Who knew?
Posted by: David Almighty at February 09, 2006 08:25 PM (Qobo4)
69
Not trying to pick a fight, but I have to respond:
[Demosophist]
It's also not at all clear to me that Islam is necessarily an ideology, although it has been trending in that direction for about a century.
I'd allege that Islam was an ideology when it started, and hasn't trended away from it one bit over its 1400-year history. Am I wrong?
Still, Sufism is Islam and I hardly regard it with enmity.
Read
this and see if you still agree. Or is this a blood libel against Sufism?
It's not mainstream Islam, of course... but neither is Salafism.
Salafism and Wahhabism are no more explicit on the "sanctity" of violent jihad, kufrage, taqiyya, the jizya, denigration of women, slavery, child rape, and forcible conquest than any other "form" of Islam.
In fact not even Islamism is yet mainstream, since the Islamists are not yet a majority in any Muslim nation (and more like 20% in most).
You have a point, but it doesn't mitigate the
real problem: tacit support of Islamists by rank-and-file Muslims. What does it matter that only 20% of Muslims are Islamists if the other 80% cannot possibly condemn their vile, jihad behavior as un-Islamic? (Because according to Islamic law it's NOT?)
Even a Muslim's secret wish to remain passive cannot outweigh their Islamic duty to wage/support jihad when pressured to choose sides. Their only other option is to renounce Islam and become a non-Muslim. And that option carries an automatic death penalty.
By all means let's scare Islam straight...
What evidence do you have that Islam is mutable? None of the "sects" disagree about jihad, kufrage, jizya, taqiyya, forcible conquest, the appropriateness of slavery and humililiation of the non-Muslim, ... and Ibn Warraq insists that Allah leaves no Muslim any choice in the matter.
Posted by: sa at February 09, 2006 11:21 PM (ba4HX)
70
Rusty wrote: The Right has always been critical of ideologies which were antithetical to Liberty.
Yeah, except Imperialism, Fascism, Corporate Socialism, Christian theocracy etc. I understand that the USA Right is confused in their years of struggle against Soviet and Mao's communistic governments so much as to pick up the mantle the USA liberal Left has lived with since the American Revolution (Personal Liberty and Justice for all) but, yow, Rusty, you're sounding as though you are in denial about why the world nearly went Communist (or why half of the world is still heading in that direction).
The Right is not known for liberty and justice every where in the world except in North America. The Right everywhere else is usually equated with Death Squads, extreme rascism and genocide, fascism and its dictators etc.
Why is the USA conservative movement aligning itself with the term "Right Wing" considering all the baggage it carries is beyond me. It is like the USA Left embracing the term "Soviet" for itself.
Posted by: World Citizen at February 10, 2006 02:25 AM (toiBa)
71
I am deeply sad to find out that most of you have lost trust in Islam. I can understand your point of view somehow because you live in US or other western part of the world where media propaganda are DOMINANT.
Unfortunately, if you wait and see you only get the kind of news you receive usually on screens which are politically oriented. To get a more objective point of view, one have to take the step to go digging and investigating for a more relevant information. But the best way to know about today's use of Islam, is to go on the field and live with muslims. Islam cannot be taught through news brodcasts, blogs or the president's speeches... if you have planned to travel overseas, try Syria, Lebanon, Palestine ...(middle east for instance is one of the most beautiful places in the world and it's so cheap). I have met many americans that lived there and all of them were happy from their rich experiences. Travels opens your mind and broaden your vision...
I'm not saying that Islam is perfect, i just want you to have the full picture of islam before you can state that Islam is "this" or "that".
I am also sad to find out that only 20% of US citizens hold a passport. But the less we know about each other the more we will fear each other.
IGNORANCE is worse than communism or religious extremism!
Posted by: brainwasher at February 10, 2006 09:57 AM (6ygiN)
72
MUST READ THIS
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/AntonioG60101.htm
Another Lure of Islam
Islam attracts converts and holds its believers through more than one manipulation of the psyche. Promises of rewards in paradise are well known. Having your ego puffed by being praised for your greatness on being Muslim. Assurance that you are on the winning side in the war for control of the planet and that your enemies will all be killed or humiliated and subjugated. And so
on...
But there is something else in my opinion that is not sufficiently recognized. And that something is permission to externalize, to express, to act out forbidden impulses. Are you a male who harbors secret rape fantasies and impulses? Islam gives you the right to rape (in your opinion) indecently dressed women or to take "temporary wives" in combat. Are you a secret barbarian who does not want to work and would prefer to participate in barbarian raids on hard working productive citizens of other cultures? Your marriage unsatisfying to you and you want an easy divorce? Want to vent your suppressed anger (which probably was produced in you by your Muslim family) on people your religion rationalizes as deserving death for not being Muslim?
And so on and so on..
We can, for the purpose of this writing, posit a model of the human psyche
as consisting of three layers. Imagine a picture of a target with three rings: The innermost center, the bull's eye...then around it a circular zone...and around the middle zone, an outside circular zone.
The outermost zone we can call "the facade." Here is the surface of consciousness and the source of everyday polite communication such as, for example: "How are you?" "I'm fine. How are you?" "Pretty good. Hey, I heard you are finally taking a vacation. Where are you going....."
Right underneath the outermost, the facade, is the layer that corresponds to the unconscious or subconscious, whichever word you prefer. This layer is largely composed of repressed material. All the forbidden impulses. Here resides greed, the urge to take things from others, violent impulses, the urge to kill, the desire to rape, the laziness, the spite,
false understanding of oneself and others, grandiosity, depression, the need to humiliate others, the fear of being attacked...and so on and so on.
The innermost is the core, the spiritual place where resides God within. From the core streams out Love, Creativity, the desire to work for self and others, positive energy, wholesome loving sexuality, empathy...and so on...
If humans did not create in themselves this strange layer between Core and Facade, we would see, in large part, an enormous decrease in human suffering. That is quite obvious. The central task of planetary healing, in my opinion, is working to diminish and eventually eliminate this second layer in the majority of Earth's human inhabitants.
Now, getting back to Islam, we can say that the genius of Islam, among other things, is in making legitimate the __expression of the forbidden impulses of
the second layer. Whereas Christianity and other religions have enforced the suppression of the second layer--through moral prohibitions and punishments for violations--Islam, on the other hand, gives Muslims an open ticket, where Qur'an, Hadith, Fiqh and Fatwa allow, to express the second layer. Muslims, thus, need not, like Christians, Jews and others, always "stuff" their hate, anger, rapacity, etc, within themselves. Islam gives you the permission--where Qur'an, Hadith, Fiqh and Fatwa allow--to blow off steam, to release the pressure of forbidden impulses. You can rape, kill, loot and humiliate others and it is all OK. Not only is it OK, but you are promised rewards for letting loose your own repressed filth and garbage on innocent victims. Sure beats the hell out of psychotherapy where you just talk about it. Under Islam, you can actually have the thrill of doing it! Most Muslims--the so-called
moderates--are not all that keen to let loose their repressed filth and garbage on innocent victims (outside their families). Let the jihadis do their dirty work for them and they--the moderates--can vicariously enjoy the painful harming of the imaginary enemies of Islam.
It is like my kindly, sensitive grandfather...who was a revolutionary in Latin America. He himself could not directly harm anyone. However, if his (imagined) enemies were executed, that was perfectly fine with him as long as he himself did not have to pull the trigger.
In the hope that my this helps in the struggle against the insanity of Islam, a religion and rationalization which barbarians use to justify their raids on productive civilizations which they hope, in the end, to enslave. And they do this with the tremendous energies which they unleash
through expressing (acting out) the second layer of the psyche.
Antonio G
Posted by: islamscam at February 10, 2006 04:20 PM (4tqxs)
73
Hey! I was writing articles on leftists, Islam and
Iran bomb in my blog. Do want to check it out?
http://balajiviswanathan.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Balaji vish at February 10, 2006 09:33 PM (DzbK8)
74
Brainwasher
"Unfortunately, if you wait and see you only get the kind of news you receive usually on screens which are politically oriented. To get a more objective point of view, one have to take the step to go digging and investigating for a more relevant information. But the best way to know about today's use of Islam, is to go on the field and live with muslims."
Ah - here is a typical islamic apologist! I for one HAVE lived in a muslim country, and in fact my wife is ex-muslim. Her family is still muslim. She had to flee for her life when she became christian at age 19 - otherwise her family would have killed her. She has not seen her family since (now some 30 years) because she is still in fear for her life if she returns. Do not try to tell me that muslims are misunderstood and are bascialy good and nice people, but portrayed poorly by the zionist run western media. It is a laugh!
If you ask me - the western media to way too soft on muslims. For example - recently we had "race-riots" here in Sydney, Australia. You had to dig deep to find out that it had nothing to do with race - they were "anti-muslim" riots. The muslims had been 'offended' by girls wearing bathing suits to a Bondi beach - so the peace loving muslims attacked the lifesavers. Of course the lifesavers fought back - and the 'riots' escalated from there. The thing is - the media said almost nothing of this - and to this day still call it a race-riot. Muslims were hardly mentioned at all. This is a real problem in the West - the media is afraid of saying anything about muslims for fear of being seen as "anti-islam".
And of course we all know how a lot of the media treated the cartoon affair.
Posted by: Kerry at February 16, 2006 03:40 PM (fpP6z)
75
As an ex-Muslim--and especially an ex-Muslim female--I would like to say that you are right on the money Rusty and I wish all non-Muslim Americans thought along your lines. I had to go to the Charles River (Boston) almost every twilight to think and meditate on religion and faith and I had a psychotic breakdown before I was able to logically and rationally as well as emotionally and psychologically totally distance myself from Islam. I still think it will take a decade more to complete my separation. Islam is a religion of force. I am not allowed to speak openly in the Muslim community and say that I have given up Islam, and I wouldn't dare say anything because I value my autonomy and ability to move freely within American society: a right that would be stolen or made very uncomfortable by "mainstream" "moderate" Muslim white collars living upper upper class lives in the American south, white collars such as my parents.
Even though my mother knows I am not Muslim, I know she secretly believes I still am. My father says the day I renounce Islam is the day I become a zero in the world financially and emotionally. As a result, I don't talk at all about religion in front of him. He has committed adultery more times than I can count on my fingers, and each act of adultery has made him more insecure about my virginity.
I am expected to marry a Muslim. Bullshit, if I do so, I will never be able to have pleasurable sex. My plan is to get financially secure as soon as I can and then go for a job (preferably high-paying or I will always be put down by my father and he will be ultra paranoid and restless about who I have been fucking) in a distant city where I can then "corrupt" society by sleeping around freely and adopting children (children from horrible social situations) rather than having my own. Marriage is a yes/no kind of thing for me, not something I will ever let anyone force me into.
What alarms me the most is the large number of Muslim psychiatrists out there. These guys (and gals) are earning in the hundreds of thousands each year and I GUARANTEE you they talk badly about American society each time a troubled caucasian becomes a patient. They think that only Muslims have "caring" mothers and fathers as a result of Islamic teachings which have not reached the rest of the world. I would pay hundreds of thousands of dollars only to those people who are prepared to analyze society for the benefit of ALL humanity, not for the denigration and humiliation of those who are dependent on society to some degree due to periods of severe mental illness.
American society is considered Satan-land in all upper upper class "moderate" "mainstream" Muslim society, even among the male physicians who regularly try to get one night stands with the nurses. I'm not saying all Muslim men are like this. The 70% who are not interested in such pursuits are more INtolerable than the 30% who live for them. Both expect to come home to a wife who is expected to show she has no sexual desires of her own; just the one, single self-less hope to yield properly to her husband and protector in the eyes of Allah (Allah forbid they see each others genitalia!!!).
As a result, I left Islam at the age of 21, thanks to my strong, strong soul and extraordinary ability to think given long periods of silence. BTW Muslims are told not to have their lives broken by long periods of silence unless they are reciting Quran in Arabic in the silence, and it is known that the greater majority of the Muslim world does not understand Arabic but merely recites it. Even those who are Arabic-speaking do not understand the Quranic "dead" Arabic of so many centuries ago.
Posted by: sara at February 20, 2006 10:20 PM (iMXXW)
76
All muslims should be round up and shot! Death to islam!!
Posted by: Jister at February 21, 2006 01:02 AM (3R18h)
77
Islam and Communism are two closed paradigms. Freedom to think, free expression and dissent are verbotten in these controled dogmas. Both Islam and Communism as closed systems are the real cause of violence, terrorism and turmoil in the world. Islamists and Communists are indoctronated at an early age to control their cognition and behavior. We need to introduce cognitive restructuring strategies to free them from their slavery.
Posted by: Babu Suseelan at March 08, 2006 03:03 AM (PqKji)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment